Yes, from their public statements they are not following Subsidiary.
Sometimes well meaning people (at least I hope they are well meaning) actually help to perpetuate the cycles of modern day slavery, trafficking situations, and marginalization of the poor.
The question has never been whether something needs to be done; it has always been about what specifically will provide the best solution, and answering that question does not involve moral choices, which is why this is not a moral issue. As you wrote, well meaning people can actually make things worse by their choices. That said, those choices would be errors, not sins.
It is you that is misapplying subsidiarity. When our people mistreat the people of another county, that is our moral problem, not there moral problem.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, from their public statements they are not following Subsidiary.
You are showing your ignorance of the topic, as I’ve suggested repeatedly, you need to study it.
Our southern Governments and Bishops are primarily responsible for their citizens/flock. Help should flow through them.
These, as well as the book published by our hosts here, are private opinions. They are not all encompassing Church doctrine, nor do they claim to be.
I suppose you think this answers my claim that all doctrine is non-negotiable. Well it doesn’t. I said “doctrine”. I did not say that all opinions on moral matters are non-negotiable. My claim is unbothered by this source of yours. In fact, this source of yours actually supports my point about the USCCB letter in the OP. Here is a quote from the very source that you just cited:
So, solidarity with the poor is also a non-negotiable. And by extension so is this paragraph from the Catechism:
So the bishops are addressing a non-negotiable doctrine in their letter, just as they were in the most recent letter on religious freedom. I suspect the only reason you want so desperately to classify them differently is because you find the doctrine of CCC 2241 inconvenient for your political ideology. But I don’t know that for sure.
This is precisely the distinction I have been making: the principles are doctrinal and must define our objectives, but the application of those principles to specific political issues are in fact prudential and “admit of many options.” The bishops, by proposing their own applications, suggest that those options do not exist.
Whether or not to deny or provide food, clothes, or humanitarian aid to migrants is not a moral issue? Whether or not to deny a much safer place in the U.S. to somebody after a long trek across two dangerous countries is not a moral issue? Whether or not to intervene and avoid another 6000+ preventable deaths in the desert is not a moral issue?
Oh I agree it’s bad. I just find it odd that Americans in the immigration-crackdown camp claim that “their” jobs are getting stolen.
But the second link addresses the dignity of human life, which is more than fitting in the context of the migrants’ human rights.
However, it is not all encompassing. There is no such thing as a “negotiable” sin. All sin is non-negotiable.
There are multiple ways to go about doing these things. Which is the moral way? To me it seems the only moral way is to treat the problems at their source because otherwise we are enabling organized crime and contributing to employment situations that are close to slave conditions.
It might be if that was actually the issue, but it isn’t, so that choice is really non-existent. The question is what are we to do with the tens of thousands of people who are trying to cross our border illegally. Part of that answer involves what should be done with them after they get in, and I’m pretty sure no one is seriously asking whether or not they should be fed.
No, not really. Unless you are advocating that the only criteria for admission to the US is that you walk across two dangerous countries. Is that what you’re suggesting, that we admit everyone who manages to walk across Mexico?
I would actually have thought the real question would be how to prevent those deaths, not whether or not they should be prevented.
That is a good question. How do we prevent the problems people are fleeing from following them here if we admit whoever manages to get across two countries?
This sounds like the argument one would expect from those who see the Emperor’s new clothes. The bishops explicitly called for the “Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy”. That you can seriously claim that the words don’t mean exactly what they say, but are instead a call for some other utterly unspecified approach I think means we are done here. When words cease to have meaning communication is no longer possible.